Law Companion(Delivered Lead Judgment) EJEMBI EKO JSC

CENTRE FOR OIL POLLUTION WATCH APPELLANT AND NIGERIAN NATIONAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION RESPONDENT SC. 319/2013

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN CJN MUSA DATTIJO MUHAMMAD JSC KUMAI BAYANG AKA’AHS JSC KUDIRAT MOTONMORI OLATOKUNBO KEKERE-EKUN JSC JOHN INYANG OKORO JSC CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE JSC Law Companion(Delivered Lead Judgment) EJEMBI EKO JSC

AT ABUJA, ON FRIDAY, 20TH JULY, 2018 ACTION- An incorporated NGO for the specific purpose of protecting the environment from being degraded has sufficient interest to sue. ACTION- Appellants herein – An NGO has the standing to sue NNPC who had acted in violation of its Constitutional obligation which has occasioned public injury to persons. ACTION- Claims of the plaintiff determines the jurisdiction of court. ACTION- Court- Duty of by Section 6 of the Constitution- Standing will only be accorded a plaintiff who shows that his civil rights and obligations are in danger.

ACTION- Government- Department of- Where transgressing the law which offends or injures the subject- Anyone including an NGO can sue to enforce the law. ACTION- In environmental matters, NGOs have requisite standing to sue to enforce the law and save lives and protect the environment. ACTION- Locus standi- Concept of is a common law doctrine developed in the context of private litigation- Its not static but evolves as the need arises. ACTION- Locus standi- Liberalizing the outdated technical rule of locus standi to effectively police the corridors of powers will prevent violation of laws. ACTION- Locus standi- Meaning of- When one is said to have locus standi. ACTION- Locus standi- Requirements of locus standi are unnecessary where these will impede the purpose of protection of individual rights. ACTION- Locus standi- Rigid adherence to former principles of locus standi will leave unchecked negative consequences of the oil spillage on the community. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW- In cases against Government- Attorney General is the dominis litis. Law Companion ADMINISTRATIVE LAW- Locus standi- Liberalizing the outdated technical rule of locus standi to effectively police the corridors of powers will prevent violation of laws. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW- Role of the state in preserving the environment for public health. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW- State owes the community a duty of care to protect them against noxious and toxicant pollutions. ATTORNEY-GENERAL- In cases against Government- Attorney General is the dominis litis. CASE LAW- Nuisance- Common law principles in the case of Rylands vs Fletcher imposed a duty of care on pipelines operators. COMPANY LAW- An incorporated NGO for the specific purpose of protecting the environment from being degraded has sufficient interest to sue.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW- Appellants herein – An NGO has the standing to sue NNPC who had acted in violation of its Constitutional obligation which has occasioned public injury to persons. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW- Court- Duty of by Section 6 of the Constitution- Standing will only be accorded a plaintiff who shows that his civil rights and obligations are in danger. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW- Interpretation of Section 6 of the Constitution and Chapter II should be with mutual conflation of other provisions of the Constitution. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW- Locus standi- Requirements of locus standi are unnecessary where these will impede the purpose of protection of individual rights. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW- Section 6 of the Constitution vests the courts with judicial powers as to whether any act or omission by any Authority or Person is or not in conformity with fundamental objectives and directive principles of state policy. COURT- ClaimsLaw of the plaintiff Companiondetermines the jurisdiction of court. COURT- Duty of by Section 6 of the Constitution- Standing will only be accorded a plaintiff who shows that his civil rights and obligations are in danger. COURT- Judicial powers- Exercise of must be justiceable and based on bonafide assertion. COURT- Locus standi- Courts generally have liberalized the traditional rule on locus standi with respect to environmental degradation. COURT- Section 6 of the Constitution vests the courts with judicial powers as to whether any act or omission by any Authority or Person is or not in conformity with fundamental objectives and directive principles of state policy. COURT- Supervisory power of over legislation by, or acts of the National Assembly. ENVIRONMENTAL LAW- In environmental matters, NGOs have requisite standing to sue to enforce the law and save lives and protect the environment.

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW- Locus standi- Courts generally have liberalized the traditional rule on locus standi with respect to environmental degradation. ENVIRONMENTAL LAW- Requirements for Oil Pipelines Licence Holders to Institute mechanism for prevention of accidents and protection of the environment. ENVIRONMENTAL LAW- Role of the state in preserving the environment for public health. EQUITABLE REMEDY- Mandamus- Applicant for leave to apply for mandamus must have locus standi. FUNDAMENTAL OBJECTIVE- Section 6 of the Constitution vests the courts with judicial powers as to whether any act or omission by any Authority or Person is or not in conformity with fundamental objectives and directive principles of state policy. GOVERNMENT- Department of- Where transgressing the law which offends or injures the subject- Anyone, including an NGO can sue to enforce the law. GOVERNMENT-Law In cases against Companion Government- Attorney General is the dominis litis. GOVERNMENT- Role of the state in preserving the environment for public health. GOVERNMENT- State owes the community a duty of care to protect them against noxious and toxicant pollutions. INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES- Interpretation of Section 6 of the Constitution and Chapter II should be with mutual conflation of other provisions of the Constitution. LEGISLATION- Court- Supervisory power of over legislation by, or acts of the National Assembly. LOCUS STANDI- Appellants herein – An NGO has the standing to sue NNPC who had acted in violation of its Constitutional obligation which has occasioned public injury to persons. LOCUS STANDI- Locus standi- Concept of is a common law doctrine developed in the context of private litigation- Its not static but evolves as the need arises.

LOCUS STANDI- Locus standi- Courts generally have liberalized the traditional rule on locus standi with respect to environmental degradation. LOCUS STANDI- Locus standi- Liberalizing the outdated technical rule of locus standi to effectively police the corridors of powers will prevent violation of laws. LOCUS STANDI- Locus standi- Meaning of- When one is said to have locus standi. LOCUS STANDI- Locus standi- Rigid adherence to former principles of locus standi will leave unchecked negative consequences of the oil spillage on the community. LOCUS STANDI- Requirements of locus standi are unnecessary where these will impede the purpose of protection of individual rights. MANDAMUS- Mandamus- Applicant for leave to apply for mandamus must have locus standi. N.G.O. – Government- Department of- Where transgressing the law which offends or injures the subject- Anyone including an NGO can sue to enforce the law. NATIONAL ASSEMBLY- Court- Supervisory power of over legislation by, or acts of the National Assembly.Law Companion NGO- An incorporated NGO for the specific purpose of protecting the environment from being degraded has sufficient interest to sue. NGO- Appellants herein – An NGO has the standing to sue NNPC who had acted in violation of its Constitutional obligation which has occasioned public injury to persons. NGO- In environmental matters, NGOs have requisite standing to sue to enforce the law and save lives and protect the environment. NUISANCE- Nuisance- Common law principles in the case of Rylands vs Fletcher imposed a duty of care on pipelines operators. OIL AND GAS- An incorporated NGO for the specific purpose of protecting the environment from being degraded has sufficient interest to sue.

OIL AND GAS- Appellants herein – An NGO has the standing to sue NNPC who had acted in violation of its Constitutional obligation which has occasioned public injury to persons. OIL AND GAS- Duty imposed on operators of oil pipelines to effect repairs of their oil pipelines. OIL AND GAS LAW- Locus standi- Courts generally have liberalized the traditional rule on locus standi with respect to environmental degradation. OIL AND GAS- Locus standi- Rigid adherence to former principles of locus standi will leave unchecked negative consequences of the oil spillage on the community. OIL AND GAS- Nuisance- Common law principles in the case of Rylands vs Fletcher imposed a duty of care on pipelines operators. OIL AND GAS- Requirements for Oil Pipelines Licence Holders to Institute mechanism for prevention of accidents and protection of the environment. OIL AND GAS- State owes the community a duty of care to protect them against noxious and toxicant pollutions. PRACTICE ANDLaw PROCEDURE- AnyCompanion judicial statement on matter of public law made before 1950 are likely to be misleading guide to what the law says today. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- Claims of the plaintiff determines the jurisdiction of court. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- Court- Judicial powers- Exercise of must be justiceable and based on bonafide assertion. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- Court-Duty of by Section 6 of the Constitution- Standing will only be accorded a plaintiff who shows that his civil rights and obligations are in danger. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- Government- Department of- Where transgressing the law which offends or injures the subject- Anyone, including an NGO can sue to enforce the law. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- Locus standi- Requirements of locus standi are unnecessary where these will impede the purpose of protection of individual rights.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- Public interest litigation can be instituted in the interest of the general public. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE- Section 6 of the Constitution vests the courts with judicial powers as to whether any act or omission by any Authority or Person is or not in conformity with fundamental objectives and directive principles of state policy. PUBLIC LAW- “Public interest”- “Interest litigation”- Meaning of. PUBLIC LAW- Any judicial statement on matter of public law made before 1950 are likely to be misleading guide to what the law says today. PUBLIC LAW- Public interest litigation can be instituted in the interest of the general public. STATE- Role of the state in preserving the environment for public health. STATE- State owes the community a duty of care to protect them against noxious and toxicant pollutions. STATUTE- Interpretation of Section 6 of the Constitution and Chapter II should be with mutual conflationLaw of other Companion provisions of the Constitution. TORT- Nuisance- Common law principles in the case of Rylands vs Fletcher imposed a duty of care on pipelines operators. TORT- State owes the community a duty of care to protect them against noxious and toxicant pollutions. WORDS AND PHRASES- “Person”- Meaning of. WORDS AND PHRASES- “Public interest”- “Interest litigation”- Meaning of. WORDS AND PHRASES- “Locus standi”- Meaning of- When one is said to have locus standi.

FACTS: The appellant in this appeal, (as plaintiff), in an admiralty in personal action, claimed against the respondent herein, (as defendant), the following reliefs:

Reinstatement, restoration and remediation of the impaired and/or contaminated environment in Acha autonomous community of Isukwua Local Government Area of Abia State of Nigeria particularly the Ineh and Aku Streams which environment was contaminated by the oil spill complained of; Provisions of portable water supply as a substitute to the soiled and contaminated Ineh/Aku Streams, which are the only and/or major source of water supply to the community; Provision of medical facilities for evaluation and treatment of the victims of the after negative health effect of the spillage and/or the contaminated streams. Subsequently, the respondent, (as defendant), by motion on notice of July 14, 2005, entreated the trial court to strike out the suit in limine on the ground that the plaintiff lacked the necessary locus standi to institute and maintain the action on the alleged oil spillage in Acha Community of Isukwua to Local Government Area of Abia State. Persuaded by the defendant’s arguments, the trial court struckLaw out the suit “forCompanion want of locus standi on the part of the plaintiff”. An Appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed hence further appeal to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE: “Whether the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal were right in dismissing the appellant’s appeal for want of locus standi to maintain the suit?”

HELD: (Unanimously Allowing the Appeal) 1. On the Meaning of Locus Sandi. My Lords, the expression “locus standi” Latin expression used, interchangeably, for “a place to stand,” or standing to sue “is a rule of ancient vintage and it arose during an era when private law dominated the

legal scene and public law had not yet been born,” per Bhagawati, J in Gupta v. President of India and Ors, 1982 2 SCR 365. Like most of English law, of the time, the rules as to standing could not be found in any statute for they were made by Judges of the realm, per Lord Diplockin Re v. I.R.C., Exp. Fed. of Self-Employed (1982) A. C. (H. L. (E.)) 617, 641. Indeed, the said locus standi rules would appear to have been more, popularly, enunciated in Ex parte Sidebotham (1880) 14 Ch. D 458. According to James, L.J. a “person aggrieved” must be a man “who has suffered a legal grievance, a man against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something or wrongfully refused him something or wrongfully affected his title to something.” C.C. Nweze, JSC at page 2. On the Narrow and rigid Conception of Locus Standi. In simple terms, therefore, this narrow and rigid conception of locus standi means that it is only a person who has suffered a specific legal injury by reason of actual or threatened violation of his legal right or legally- protected interest who can bring an action for judicial redress, In effect, this rule with regard to locus standi “thus postulates a right-duty pattern which isLaw commonly to beCompanion found in private law litigation.” C.C. Nweze, JSC at page 3. On when one is said to have Locus Standi. In “Oloriode v. Oyebi (1984) 1 SCNLR 390, 400,Irikefe JSC.. (as he then was) declared that ‘a party prosecuting an action would have locus standi where the reliefs claimed would confer some benefit on such a party’. C.C. Nweze, JSC at page 4. On the Duty of Courts By Section 6(6)(b) of the 1999 Constitution, Standing will only be accorded a Plaintiff who shows that His Civil Rights and Obligations are in Danger. I think this passage correctly sums up the law and is in accord with Olawoyin v. A.-G. of Northern Nigeria. Bello, JSC did not, however, stop there. He went on to consider the provision of our Constitution and after quoting section 6(6)(b) of the Constitution (1979 Constitution) went on to observe: “It may be observed that this sub-section expresses the scope and content of the judicial powers vested by the Constitution in the

courts within the purview of the sub-section. Although the powers appear to be wide, they are limited in scope and content to only matters, actions and proceedings for the determination of any question as to the civil rights and obligations of that person. It seems to me that upon the construction of the sub-section, it is only when the civil rights and obligations of the person, who invokes the jurisdiction of the court, are in issue for determination that the judicial powers of the courts may be invoked. In other words, standing will only be accorded to a plaintiff who shows that his civil rights and obligations have been or are in danger of being violated or adversely affected by the act complained of. C.C. Nweze, JSC at page 5. The Exercise of Judicial Power must be Justiceable and based on Bonafide Assertion. The type of case or controversy which will justify the exercise by the court of its judicial power must be justiciable and based on bona fide assertion of right by the litigants (or one of them) before it….. I take the view that the circumstances in which the judicial power under section 6 (6) of the 1979 ConstitutionLaw can be exercised Companion by the court for the purpose of pronouncing on the constitutional validity of an Act for the National Assembly or, more particularly any legislation must be limited to those occasions in which it has become necessary for it (i.e. the court) in the determination of a justiciable controversy or case based on bona fide assertion of rights by the adverse litigants (or anyone of them) before it to make such a pronouncement. C.C. Nweze, JSC at page 6. On the Supervisory Power of Courts over Legislation by, or Acts of National Assembly. The court does not, in my view possess a general veto power over legislation by, or Acts of, the National Assembly; its powers properly construed, are supervisory, and the supervisory power in my view can only be properly exercised in circumstances to which I have referred above. C.C. Nweze, JSC at page 7. Generally, Courts all over have liberalized the Traditional Rule on Locus Standi with Respect to Environmental Degradation.

The English courts are not alone on this development. Other common law jurisdictions have followed that pattern. In India, the Supreme Court, without any statutory enactment, but rather for the overall need to do justice, generally, liberalized the traditional rule on locus standi with respect to environmental degradation, since, in the court’s view, maintaining a clean environment is the responsibility of all persons in the country, Maharaj Signh v. State U. P. AIR1976 SC 2607; Raflam Municipal Council v. Vardhichard, AIR 1980 SC 1622; S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR (1982) SC 149, 189. C.C. Nweze, JSC at page 8. Section 6 of the Constitution Vests the Court with Judicial Power as to Whether any act or Omission by any Authority or Person is in Conformity with Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy. In Olafisoye v. F.R.N. (2004) 4 NWLR (Pt.864) 580, 659. Tobi, JSC, explained at page 659, paras. D-G of the NWLR that: “Section 6 vests judicial powers on the courts, which are enumerated in subsection 5. By subsection 6 of the section, judicial powers shall not, except as otherwise provided by the Constitution, extend to any issue or question as to whether any act or omission by any authorityLaw or person Companion as to whether any law or any judicial decision is in conformity with the fundamental objectives and directive principles of State Policy set out in Chapter II of the Constitution. C.C. Nweze, JSC at page 9. Interpretation of Section 6 of the Constitution and Chapter II should be with Mutual Conflation of other Provisions of the Constitution. In my humble view, the non-justiciability of section 6 of the Constitution is neither total nor sacrosanct as the subsection provides a leeway by the use of the words ‘except as otherwise provided by this Constitution’. This means that if the Constitution otherwise provides in another section, which makes a section or sections of Chapter II justiciable, it will be so interpreted by the courts. The implication of this authoritative pronouncement is that the proper approach to the interpretation of the said chapter should be by the mutual conflation of other provisions of the Constitution with the provisions of chapter II. This is so because “if the Constitution provides otherwise in another section, which makes a section or sections of

Chapter II justiciable, it will be interpreted by the courts.” C.C. Nweze, JSC at page 10. On the Requirements for Oil Pipelines Licence Holders to Institute Mechanism for Prevention of Accidents, and Protection of the Environment. It is obvious that it was pursuant to section 17 of the Oil Pipelines Act that the Oil and Gas Pipeline Regulations were promulgated. A community reading of the above constitutive provision with Regulation 9(ii); would reveal that they require the oil pipeline licence holders to institute mechanisms for prevention of accidents (like crude oil spill) and for remedial action for the protection of the environment and control of accidental discharge from the pipeline. C.C. Nweze, JSC at page 11. On the Meaning of “Person”. Now, since the Interpretation Act, Cap 123 Vol 7, LFN, defines “person” to include “anybody” or “persons corporate” or incorporated.” C.C. Nweze, JSC at page 12. Appellants herein have Locus Standi to sue the Respondents who had acted inLaw violation of Companion Constitutional Obligation which has occasioned Public Injury. I take the view that, paragraph 2 of the amended statement of claim, page 31 of the record, read together with paragraph 1 of the said amended statement of claim, as determinant of the appellant’s locus standi, the reliefs sought, I am on safe grounds by making a finding in favour of the appellants’ locus standi, Beyond this fact, what is obvious, from the appellants’ pleadings is that the respondent, a public authority, has by these acts complained of, acted in violation both of its ‘constitutional obligation [section 20 thereof] and its statutory obligations. These have occasioned injury to public interest or public injury. C.C. Nweze, JSC at page 13. Requirements of Locus Standi are Unnecessary where these will impede the Purpose of Protection of Individuals Rights. The first contention rests on the theory that courts are the final arbiters of what is legal and illegal… Requirements of locus standi are therefore is unnecessary in this case since they merely impede the purpose of the

function as conceived here. On the other hand, where the prime aim of the judicial process is to protect individual rights, its concern with the regularity of law and administration is limited to the extent that individual rights are infringed. C.C. Nweze, JSC at page 14. Liberalizing the Outdated Technical Rule of Locus Standi to Effectively Police the Corridors of Powers will Prevent Violation of Laws. It would, in my view, be a grave lacuna in our system of public law if a pressure group, like the federation, or even a single public-spirited tax- payer, were prevented by outdated technical rules of locus standi from bringing the matter to the attention of the court to vindicate the rule of law and get the unlawful conduct stopped… it is not, in my view, a sufficient answer to say that judicial review of the actions of officers or departments of central government is unnecessary because they are accountable to parliament for the way in which they carry out their functions. They are accountable to Parliament for what they do so far as regards efficiency and policy, and of that Parliament is the only Judge, they are responsible to a court of justice for the lawfulness of what they do, and of that the court is the only Judge. Rex v. InlandLaw Revenue CommissionersCompanion (1981) 2 WLR 722, 740. In effect, there is considerable force in the view that it is by liberalizing the rule of locus standi that it is possible to effectively police the corridors of powers and prevent violations of law. C.C. Nweze, JSC at page 15. In Environmental Matters, NGOs have requisite Standi to Sue. In all, then, I take the humble view that, in environmental matters, such as the instant one, NGOs, such as the plaintiff in this case, have the requisite standi to sue. After all, as Dr Thio opined, and I agree with the erudite author, the “judicial function (is) primarily aimed at preserving legal order by confining the legislative and executive organs of government within their powers in the interest of the public (jurisdiction de droit objectif),” Against this background, I hold that the lower courts erred in law. I, therefore, enter an order allowing this appeal. C.C. Nweze, JSC at page 16. Any Judicial Statement on Matters of Public Law made before 1950 are likely to be Misleading Guide to what the Law says today. In England, as in other common law jurisdictions there is liberalization or extension of the meaning of locus standi based on the principle or view as

expressed by Lord Diplock in Rev. v. I.R.C. Ex parte Federation of self- Employed(1982) AC 640-641, inter alia, that: “ ..... Any judicial statements on matters of public law made before 1950 are likely to be misleading guide to what the law is today”. W.S.N. Onnoghen, CJN at page 17. Where Plaintiffs, an NGO Sue to enforce the Law and Save Lives and Protect the Environment, they have Locus Standi. The plaintiff avers that the inhabitants of Acha Community; visitors and travellers thereto continue to use water from the Ineh/Aku streams (for all purposes that water is used) after the incident as there is no alternative water supply to them”. From the above pleadings, the interest of the plaintiff is clear and unambiguous. The suit is therefore not prompted by ill motive or mischief. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant’s action(s) is/are in breach of the law and that the result of the objectionable deed(s) is injury to the health of the people and/or dangerous to the environment thereby making it necessary for the plaintiff to initiate the action to enforce the law and save lives and protect or restore the environment. W.S.N. Onnoghen, CJN at page Law Companion 18. Where Government Department is transgressing the Law which Offends or Injures the Subjects, Anyone can Sue to enforce the Law. Lord Dening, MR. relied on his earlier statement of the law in the Mc Whirter’s case (1973) QB 629 at 649 thus: “I regard it a matter of high constitutional principles that if there is good ground for supposing that Government Department or Public Authority is transgressing the law, or is about to transgress it, in any way which offends or injures thousands of Her Majesty’s subjects, then anyone or those offended or injured can draw it to the attention of the courts of and seek to have the law enforced and the courts in their discretion can grant whatever remedy is appropriate”. W.S.N. Onnoghen, CJN at page 19. On the Duty of Care Imposed on Operators of Oil Pipelines to effect Repairs of their Oil Pipe Lines. The Oil and Gas Pipelines Act, as earlier stated in this judgment imposes a duty of care on the owners or operators of oil pipelines, like the

defendants, to maintain and effect repair of their oil pipelines to ensure that crude oil/hydrocarbon oil being transported through these pipes do not escape and cause damage to human lives and the environment as they are very dangerous in nature. W.S.N. Onnoghen, CJN at page 20. The Common Law Principles in the Law of Nuisance as Enunciated in the Case of Rylands Vs Fletcher Imposes a Duty of Care on Pipelines Operators. So in the instant case where the plaintiff, an NGO, seeks the enforcement of the defendant’s obligations under law vis-à-vis the rights of the affected communities to maintain a healthy environment which extends to their forest, rivers, air and land, they should be heard. Apart from the statutory obligations of the defendant under the Oil and Gas Pipelines Act and the regulations made thereunder, the common law principles in the law of nuisance as enunciated in the case of Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) L.R.3 H.L. 330 imposes a duty of care on the defendant. W.S.N. Onnoghen, CJN at page 21. The Law on Locus Standi in Public Interest Litigation now encompasses Public Spirited Individuals and NGOs. It is thereforeLaw my considered Companion opinion that from the facts pleaded in the amended statement of claim earlier reproduced in this judgment and the law, the lower courts are in error in holding that appellant has no locus standi in instituting the present action which is aimed at saving the environment and lives of the people. The plaintiff cannot, in anyway, be described as a busy body or interloper. This is a public interest litigation in which the chambers of the Honourable Attorney-General of the Federation traditionally holds sway but the law on locus standi in that regard has grown beyond that and now encompasses public spirited individuals and NGOs. The issue in this case, from the facts disclosed in the pleadings is not whether the coast of locus standi should be broadened or expanded but whether appellant can be said to have disclosed sufficient interest in the subject matter to be accorded a standing to initiate the proceedings to remedy the wrongs caused by the action/inaction of the defendant. W.S.N. Onnoghen, CJN at page

22. Rigid Adherence to Former Principles of Locus Standi will Leave Unchecked Negative Consequences of the oil Spillage on the Community. That the peculiar facts of the instant suit distinguishes it from the previous cases pronounced upon by this court. Rigid adherence to the earlier decisions of the court; they argue, will leave unchecked all the negative consequences of the oil spillage on the community which the instant action would otherwise remedy. The new facts necessitate a more liberal approach on the principle of locus standi. Counsel submit that the leeway section 6(6) vis-à-vis sections 16(1) and 17(1) and of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) provided to be explored to either extend the frontiers of locus standi in the present matter or serve as a basis for departing from all the previous decisions of this court on same with a view to averting injustice. M.D. Muhammad, JSC at page 23. Generally, Courts all over have liberalized the Traditional Rule on Locus Standi with Respect to Environmental Degradation. The doctrine of locus standi is unarguably a legacy of the common law. The doctrine does not have any statutory backing. In evolving the principle, this court in its very many decisions, whether in the realm of private law as featuredLaw in Oloriode v. CompanionOyebi (1984) SCNLR 390 at 400 or in the sphere of public law as occurred in Olawoyin v. Attorney-General of Northern Nigeria, has insisted that for a plaintiff to have the locus standi to maintain an action, it must, by its claim, demonstrate the injury it suffers from the conduct of the defendant against whom the action is instituted. M.D. Muhammad, JSC at page 24. Generally, Courts all over have liberalized the Traditional Rule on Locus Standi with Respect to Environmental Degradation. Courts in this country, the lot have correctly argued, are by virtue of sections 16(2), 17(2)(d) (3), and 20 of the 1999 Constitution, section 17(4) of the Oil Pipelines Act, Cap 07, LFN and the Oil and Gas Pipeline Regulations under duty to protect the environment and would fail in that duty if in the instant case they do not facilitate the protection these laws have put in place. Their reliance on R v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Ex Parte World Development Movement Ltd (1995)1 ALL ELR 611, 620, Reg v. Inland Revenue Commissions, Ex parte National Federation of self-Employed and Small Business Ltd (1982) AC 617,

639 as instances of liberalization of the scope of locus standi by courts in similar jurisdictions and in the absence of any statutory empowerment is apposite. M.D. Muhammad, JSC at page 25. The Appellant, an NGO Incorporated for the Specific Purpose of Protecting the Environment from being Degraded has Sufficient Interest to Maintain this Action. Appellant’s claim clearly suggests the degradation of environment occasioned by the respondent’s seeming breach of relevant constitutional and statutory provisions. In insisting that the appellant herein satisfies the injury test in order to maintain an action, is to sustain injustice that would otherwise be obviated by the instant suit. In holding that this is a proper case to liberalize the frontiers of locus standi, I gratefully adopt the opinion of Bello JSC (as he then was and of blessed memory) in Adesanya’s case (supra) thus:- “In the final analysis, whether a claimant has sufficient justiciable interest or sufferance of injury or damage depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, Bengal Immunity Co. v. State of Bihar (1955) 2 S.C.R. 602; Forthingham v. Mellon (1925)262 U.S. 447; for IndiaLaw and America respectively.Companion Even in the Canadian case of Torson v. A.-G. of Canada (1974) 1 N.R. 2254, and the Australia case of Mckinlay v. Commonwealth (1975) 135C.L.R ... in which liberal view on standing were expressed, the issue of sufficiency of interest was the foundation upon which the decisions in both cases were reached.” M.D. Muhammad, JSC at page 26. The Rigidity in the Application of the Concept of Locus Standi must be relaxed in Public Interest Litigations. There is no gain saying in the fact that there is increasing concern about climate change, depletion of the ozone layer, waste management, flooding, global warming, decline of wildlife, air, land and water pollution. Both nationally and internationally, countries and organizations are adopting stronger measures to protect and safe guard the environment for the benefit of the present and future generations. The issue of environmental protection against degradation has become a contemporary issue. The plaintiff/appellant being in the vanguard of protecting the environment should be encouraged to ensure that actions or

omissions by Government Agencies or Multi-National Oil Companies that tend to pollute the environment are checked. Since other commonwealth countries such as England, Australia and India have relaxed their rigidity in the application of the concept of locus standi in public interest litigations, Nigeria should follow suit. K.B. Aka’ahs, JSC at page 27. On the Meaning of Public Interest. Public interest is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th edition as: “The general welfare of the public that warrants recognition and protection something in which the public as a whole has a stake, esp. an interest that justifies government regulation”. K.M.O. Kekere-Ekun, JSC at page 28. On what a Public Interest Litigation is. What is public interest litigation? Learned amicus curiae, Lucious Nwosu, SAN, suggests that it is “essentially an action brought for the benefit of a group or class of persons who have suffered a general wrong or about to so suffer as a result of the activities of other persons, usually corporate institutions, governments, for political, religious or economic gains. “In my considered view, this is a fairly accurate definition. One of the features of this typeLaw of litigation isCompanion that the victims are often groups of persons who would not ordinarily be in a position to approach the court on their own due to impecuniosity or lack of awareness of their rights. It may also arise where, as in this case, damage to the environment is alleged to have spread or to have the capability of spreading over a very wide expanse of water, covering several communities, where it would be impracticable for every member of the community to sue or would be impossible to identify every person affected. K.M.O. Kekere-Ekun, JSC at page 29. Locus Standi is the Capacity to Sue. The concept of locus standi has not been statutorily defined. It is a development of case law. Essentially, it has been held to mean “standing to sue”. It is the legal capacity to institute or commence an action in a competent court of law or tribunal without let or hindrance from any person or body whatsoever. In order to determine whether a party has the necessary locus, the court would consider only the originating processes filed by the plaintiff. He must show sufficient interest in the subject matter of the suit, which interest would be affected by the action or the damage or

injury he would suffer as a result of the action. K.M.O. Kekere-Ekun, JSC at page 30. Concept of Locus Standi is a Common Law Doctrine developed in the Context of Private Litigation. As rightly observed by learned counsel for the appellant, the concept of locus standi referred to above is a common law doctrine developed and created by the English courts and was developed in the context of private litigation, without regard to public interest litigation. K.M.O. Kekere-Ekun, JSC at page 31. The Concept of Locus Standi is not Static but evolving as the Needs of Society demand. As far back as 1982, the house of lords appreciated the fact that the concept of locus standi was not static and continued to evolve as the needs of society demanded. K.M.O. Kekere-Ekun, JSC at page 32. On What the Court Determines when Considering the Issue of Locus Standi. An important factor when considering locus standi is the fact that whether or not a party has the locus standi to institute an action is not dependent on the meritsLaw of the case Companion but whether the plaintiff has sufficient interest in the subject matter of the dispute. It is a condition precedent a determination on the merits. At this stage, all that is being determined is whether the appellant has the locus standi to sue. Whether the suit will ultimately succeed is not for consideration at this stage. As observed in the case of R v. Inspectorate of Pollution & Anor., ex parte Greenpeace Ltd. (No.2) (supra), where a government agency fails to carry out its statutory function in circumstances such as this, it is highly unlikely that the government, Federal or State, would institute an action against its own agency. The public would be left without a remedy. K.M.O. Kekere- Ekun, JSC at page 33. Government cannot Institute Suits against its Agencies hence the Public will be left without a Remedy. These provisions show that the Constitution, the legislature and the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights, to which Nigeria is a signatory, recognize the fundamental rights of the citizenry to a clean and healthy environment to sustain life.

The appellant, by its pleadings has shown that some of its members and the general public are affected by the destruction of marine life, water, flora and fauna of the Ineh and Aku streams/rivers occasioned by the alleged negligence of the defendant. It has shown that by the suit, it seeks the enforcement of the defendant’s obligations under the relevant legislation on behalf of the affected communities, including some of its members. I am satisfied that it has shown sufficient interest in the subject matter of the suit to clothe it with the necessary standing to sue. K.M.O. Kekere-Ekun, JSC at page 34. The Claim of the Plaintiffs determines the Jurisdiction of Courts. Now, going by settled judicial authorities of this court and elsewhere, the term locus standi denotes legal capacity to institute proceedings in a court of law. This principle focuses on the party seeking to get its complaint laid before the court vis-à-vis the claim he seeks from the court. The law is settled that it is the claim of the plaintiff that determines the jurisdiction of the court and to that extent whether he has a right or standing to sue or he is just a busybody. J.I. Okoro, JSC at page 35. Public Interest Litigations can be instituted in the Interest of the general Public. Law Companion Public interest litigation, it is instituted in the interest of the general public. As was rightly submitted by one of the amici curiae, Asiwaju Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN, an application to the court in this regard, is initiated by one or more persons on behalf of some victims who cannot apply to the court for redress for themselves due to one reason or the other. It is intended to improve access to justice to the poor when their rights are infringed and for the protection of the public affected. Again, such public interest litigation serves as medium for protecting, liberating and transforming the interest of marginalized groups. It raises issues against non personal interest of the applicant and I agree that public interest litigation is a catalyst for sustainable development. J.I. Okoro, JSC at page 36. Non- Governmental Organisation, not seeking their Personal Interest can bring an Action in Court to demand Compliance and ensure Protection of the Environment and Public Health. I think the time has come for this court to relax the application of the rule of locus standi in cases founded on public interest litigation especially in

environmental issues. No particular person owns the environment. It is the duty of Government to protect the environment for the good of all and where government agencies desecrate such environments and other relevant government agencies fail, refuse and/or neglect to take necessary steps to enforce compliance, non-governmental organizations, which do not necessarily seek their personal interest, can, in my opinion bring an action in court to demand compliance and ensure the restoration, remediation and protection of the environment, It is in the interest of the public including the government in general. J.I. Okoro, JSC at page 37. On the Essence of the Concept of Locus Standi. I wish, at this juncture, to point out that no statute that I know of (except Rules of the High Court on judicial review) has made any definitive provision prescribing who has the right generally to sue. Locus Standi was evolved by the common law courts to protect the courts” from being used as a playground by professional litigants, or, and meddlesome interlopers, busy bodies who really have no stake or interest in the subject matter of litigation”. E. Eko, JSC at page 38. An Applicant for Leave to apply for Mandamus must have Locus Standi to do that.Law Companion It is fundamental that an applicant for leave to apply for an order of mandamus must have locus standi to make the application before leave can be granted by the court. Indeed, the party making any claim bringing an application before the court must have locus standi. If the plaintiff has no locus standi, the court has no jurisdiction in the matter and it must be struck out. When a party’s standing to sue (i.e. locus standi) is in issue, the question is whether the person whose standing is in issue is the proper person to request an adjudication of a particular issue and not whether the issue itself is justiceable. Thus, one has to look at the cause of action and the facts of the case to ascertain whether there is disclosed a locus standi or standing to sue. The cause of action, if any, will disclose facts from which it could be ascertained whether there is an infringement of or violation of the civil rights and obligations of the party, which, if established before the court, will entitle him to the relief or remedy. E. Eko, JSC at page

39. Non- Governmental Organisation, not seeking their Personal Interest can bring an Action in Court to demand Compliance and ensure Protection of the Environment and Public Health. Accordingly, every person, including NGO’s, who bona fide seeks in the law court the due performance of statutory functions or enforcement of statutory provisions or public laws, especially laws designed to protect human lives, public health and environment, should be regarded as proper persons clothed with standing in law to request adjudication on such issues of public nuisance that are injurious to human lives, public health and environment. E. Eko, JSC at page 40. In Cases against Government, the Attorney General is the Domini Litis. In all cases against government, the Attorney-General is the dominis litis and is always sued “virtute officii” (by virtue of his office) as the representative of government. E. Eko, JSC at page 41. On the Meaning of Locus Sandi. Locus Standi should be broadly determined with due regard to the corporate interest being sought to be protected bearing in mind who the plaintiff is or plaintiffs are per Uwaifo, JSC at pages 170, i. para. F and ii. It is importantLaw to bear in mindCompanion that ready access to the court is one of the attributes of civilized legal system . . . (It) is dangerous to limit the opportunity for one to canvass his case by rigid adherence to the ubiquitous principle inherent in locus standi which is whether a person has the stand in a case. The society is becoming highly dynamic and certain stands of yesteryears (may no longer stand in our present state of our social and political development”. E. Eko, JSC at page 42. The Role of a State in Preserving the Environment for Public Health. In order to broadly determine locus standi, under environmental rights as human rights, Article 24 of the African Charter on Peoples and Human Rights should be read together with sections 33(1) and 20 of the “Constitution on the role of the State in preserving the environment for the health and by extension (lives) of Nigerians”, and that “it is apparent that the right to a healthy environment is a human right in Nigeria”. E. Eko, JSC at page 43. The State Owes the Community a Duty of Care to protect them against Noxious and Toxicant Pollutants.

The Acha Community and all people living around and beside Ineh and Aku streams, who depend on the two rivers as their source of drinking water, fishing and other economic activities, “have a right to a general environment favourable to their development.” They, each, have the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution. The State, including the defendant, a Statutory Corporation, owes the community a duty to protect them against noxious and toxicant pollutants and to improve and safeguard the water they drink, the air they breathe, the land and forest, including wildlife in and around the two rivers, they depend on for their existence, living and economic activities. E. Eko, JSC at page

CASES REFERRED TO 1. A.-G. Abia v. A.-G. Federation (2006) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1005) 265 2. A.-G. Adamawa State v. AGF (2005) 18 NWLR (Pt. 958) 581, 624. 3. A.-G. Anambra State v. A.-G. Federation (2007) All FWLR (Pt. 379)1218, (2007) 12 NWLR (Pt.1047) 4; 4. A.-G.Law Anambra State Companion v. Eboh (1992) 1 NWLR (Pt. 218) 491. 5. A.-G. Bendel Sate v. A.-G., Federation (1981) 10 SC 1; (1982)3 NCLR 1 6. A.-G. Eastern Nigeria v. A.-G. Federation (1964) 1 ANLR 224; 7. A.-G. Kaduna State v. Hassan (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 8) 483. 8. A.-G. Lagos State v. A.-G. Federation (2003) 35 WRN 1; (2003) 12NWLR (Pt. 833) 1; 9. A.-G. Lagos State v. Eko Hotels Ltd (2006) 18 NWLR(Pt. 1011) 378, 10. A.-G. Lagos State v. Eko Hotels Ltd (sic); 11. A.-G. Ondo State v. A.-G. F.R.N. (2002) 9 SC 1; (2002) 9 NWLR (Pt. 772) 222; 12. A.I.C. Ltd. v. NNPC (2005) 11 NWLR (Pt.937) 563. 13. Abacha v. Fawehinmi (2000) 6 NWLR (Pt. 660) 228. 14. Abia State Transport Corporation v. Quorum Consortium Ltd (2009) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1145) P.1, 15. ACC Co. Ltd. v. Rao Investment and Properties Ltd. (1992) 1 NWLR (Pt. 219) 583 16. Adediran v. Interland Transport Ltd. (1991) 9 NWLR(Pt. 214) 155

17. Adenuga v. Odumeru (2003) 8 NWLR (Pt. 821) 163; 18. Adesanya v. President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1981) 5 SC 112; (1981) 2 NCLR 358; 19. Adesokan v. Adegborolu (1997) 3 SCNJ 16; (1997) 3 NWLR (Pt.493)261. 20. Adewole v. Jakande(1981) 1 NCLR 262. 21. Adigun v. A.-G. Oyo State (1987) 2 NWLR (Pt. 56) 197, 22. Adjei-Ampofo v. Accra Metropolitan Assembly & Attorney-General (No.l0(2007-2008) SCGLR 611. 23. Ajayi v. Adebiyi (2012)11 NWLR (Pt. 1310) 137; 24. Amos v. Shell-BP(Nig) Ltd (1974) 4 ECSLR 486 25. Amusa Momoh v. Jimoh Olotu (1970) 1 All NLR 117; (1970) ANLR 121; 26. Araka v. Egbue (2003) 17 NWLR (Pt. 848) 1 27. Basinco Motors Ltd. v. Woermann-Line (2009) 39 NSCQR 284, 313, 334; (2009) 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157)149. 28. Bengal Immunity Co. v. State of Blhar (1955) 2 SCR 602, 29. Bewaji v. Obasanjo (2008) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1093) 540 30. Bewaji v. Obasanjo (2008) 9NWLR (Pt. 1093) 540 31. Buraimoh Oloriode v. Simeon Oyebi (1984) 5 SC, 32. BusariLaw v. Oseni (1992) Companion 4 NWLR (Pt. 237) 557; 33. Chevron (Nig.) Ltd. v. Warri North LGC (2003) 5 NWLR (Pt.812) 28, 34. Daramola v. A.-G., Ondo State (2000) 7 NWLR (Pt. 665) 440 35. Efunwape Okulate v. Gbadamosi Awosanya (2000) 2NWLR (Pt. 646) 530; 36. F.R.N. v. Anache (2004) 14 WRN 1; 37. Fawehinmi v. Akilu (1987) 12 SC 109; (1987) 4 NWLR(Pt. 67) 797; 38. Fawehinmi v. Akilu In re Oduneye (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt. 67) 39. Fawehinmi v. Babangida (2003) 3 NWLR (Pt. 808) 604; (2003) 12 WRN 1S.C 40. Fawehinmi v. President, FRN (2007) 14NWLR (Pt. 1054) 275 41. Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Anache: In Re Chief Olafisoye (2004) 14 WRN 1 42. First Bank of Nigeria Ltd. v. Maiwada (2012)51 NSCQR 155, 161; (2013) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1348) 444; 43. Flast et al v. Cohen, Secretary of Health Education and Welfare (1968) 392 US 83

44. Forthingham v. Mellon (1925)262 U.S. 447; 45. Gamioba v. Esezi II (1961) 1 ANLR 584, (1961) 2 SCNLR 237; 46. Global Transport Oceanico S. A. v. Free Enterprises Nig. Ltd (2001) 5 NWLR (Pt. 706) 426; 47. Gupta v. President of India (1982) 2 SCR 365. 48. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR (1982) S.C. 149 49. Hickey v. Electric Reduction Co. of Canada Ltd (1970) 21 DLR (3d) 368[NTLD SC); 50. Hunter v. Canary Wharf Ltd (1997) AC 655. 51. Inakoju v. Adeleke (2007) 4NWLR (Pt. 1025) 423 52. Inland Revenue Commissioner v. National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Business Ltd (1981) 2 All ER 93 53. Iteogu v. L.P.D.C. (2009)17 NWLR (Pt.1171) 614, 54. Jev v. Iyortom (2014) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1428) 575. 55. Kaduna State v. Hassan (1985)2 NWLR (Pt. 8) 483 56. Ladejobi v. Oguntayo (2004) 18 NWLR (Pt. 904) 149 57. Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 2 SCNLR 341 58. Maharaj Singh v. State of U.P. AIR (1976) SC 2607; 59. MaradesaLaw v. The MilitaryCompanion Governor of Oyo State (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt.27) 125; 60. Marbury v. Madison (1803) 1 Cranch 137 61. Mckinlay v. Commonwealth (1975) 15 CL.R. 1 62. Metha v. Union of India (1987) SCR 819 63. Metropolitan Manila Development Authority v. Concerned Residents of Manila Bay Nos. 171947-48, 574 SCRA 665 (18 December, 2008); 64. Molokwu v. C.O.P(1972) 2 ECSLR 979 65. N.N.P.C v. Fawehinmi (1998) 7 NWLR (Pt. 559) 598 66. Nyame v. F.R.N. (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1193) 344 67. Odeneye v. Efunuga (1990) 7 NWLR (Pt. 164) 618; 68. Odi v. Osafile (1985) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1) 17 69. Oduola v. Nabhan (1981) 5 SC (Reprint) 120 70. Ojukwu v. Ojukwu (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt.1119) 439; 71. Okechukwu v. Etukokwu (1998) 5 NWLR (Pt. 562) 513 72. Okogie v. A.-G. Lagos State (1981) 2 NCLR 337; 73. Olafisoye v. F.R.N. (2004) 4 NWLR (Pt.864) 580

74. Olafisoye v. FRN (2004) 4 NWLR (Pt. 864)580 75. Olagunju v. Yahaya (1998) 3 NWLR (Pt. 542) 501; 76. Olawoyin v. A.-G. Northern Region (1961) All NLR 269; (1961) 2 SCNLR 5; (1961) 2 NSCQR 165 77. Oloriode v. Oyedi (1984) 5 SC 1 (1984) SCNLR. 78. Owodunni v. Regd Trustees of CCC (2000) 10NWLR (Pt. 675) 315 79. Oyidiobu v. Okechukwu (1972) 5 SC 191 80. Pam v. Mohammed (2008) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1112) 1 81. Pride of Derby & Derbyshire Angling Association Ltd v. British Celanese Ltd (1953) 1 All E.R 179 (C.A) 82. R v. I.R.C. ex parte Federation of Self-Employed (1982) A.C. 617 83. R v. Inspectorate of Pollution ex parte Green Peace Ltd (1994) AllER 329, 84. R v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Ex Parte World Development Movement Ltd (1995)1 ALL ELR 611 85. R v. Somerset County Council and ARC Southern Ltd, Ex Parte Dixon (1998) Environment LR 111; 86. R. v. Inspectorate of Pollution Ex parte Green peace Ltd. (No.2) (1994) 4 AllLaw ER 329; Companion 87. Raflam Municipal Council v. Vardhichard, AIR (1980) SC 1622; 88. Ransome-Kuti v. A.-G., Federation (1985) 7 NWLR (Pt. 6) 211 89. Ratlam v. Vardhichard AIR (1980) SC 1622; 90. Re Reed Bowen and Co (1887) 19 QBD 174. 91. Reg v. Greater London Council, Ex parte Blackburn (1976) 1 WLR 550. 92. Rev. v. I.R.C. Ex parte Federation of self-Employed(1982) AC 640 93. Rex v. Inland Revenue Commissioners (1981) 2 WLR 722 94. Rossek v. ACB Ltd (1993) 8 NWLR(Pt. 312) 382 95. Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) L.R.3 H.L. 330 96. S. P. Gupta v. President of India, AIR (1982) SC 149 97. S.P.D.C. Co. Ltd. v. Otoko (1990) 6 NWLR (Pt. 159) 693. 98. S.P.D.C.N. Ltd. v. Amadi (2011) 14NWLR (Pt. 1266) 157 99. Senator Adesanya v. President Federal Republic of Nigeria (1981) 12 NSCC 146; (1981) ANLR 1; (1981) 5 SC 1112; (1981) 2 NCLR 358 100. Shell Pet. Dev. v. Nwawka (2001) 10 NWLR (Pt. 720) 64;

101. SPDC (Nig.) Ltd. v. Nwawka (2003) FWLR (Pt. 144) 506 (2001) 10 NWLR (Pt. 720) 64 102. SPDC (Nig.) Ltd. v. Otoko (1990) 6 NWLR (Pt. 159) 693; 103. SPDC v. Amadi (2011) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1266) 157. 104. SPDC v. Nwawka (2001) 10 NWLR (Pt. 720) 64; 105. Sunday Adegbite Taiwo v. Sarah Adegboro (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.1259) 562 106. Thomas v. Olufosoye (1986) 1 NWLR(Pt. 18) 669; 107. Thorson v. A.-G. Canada (1974) 1 N.R. 225, 108. Umudje v. Shell Petroleum Development (1975) 9-11 SC 155.

STATUTES REFERRED TO 1. Article 24 African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap A9, LFN, 2004, 2. CompaniesLaw and Allied CompanionMatters Act, 1990 3. Federal Environmental Protection Agency Act (FEPA) Cap F10 LFN, 2004. 4. Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure)Rules. 5. Interpretation Act, Cap 123 Vol 7, LFN 6. National Oil Spill Detection and Response Agency Act, 2006, (NOSDRA) 7. Order 25, rule 2(2) and of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2000 8. Order 34, rule 3(4) of the Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2007. 9. Radioactive Substances Act 1960. 10. Section 13 of Taxes Management Act, 1970 11. Section 17 of the Oil Pipelines Act 12. Section 2 and section 3 Of the Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation Act, Cap N123, LFN, 2004. 13. Section 6 and of the National Oil Spill Detection and Response Agency (Establishment) Act, 2006. 14. Section 6(6) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1979

15. Sections 1, 5, 26, 27 and 41 of the Federal Environmental Protection Agency Act, Cap F10, LFN, 2004, 16. Sections 17(4) and 11 of the Oil Pipelines Act Cap. 07 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004 17. Sections 6 and 7 National Environmental Standards and Regulations Enforcement Agency(Establishment) Act; 2007, 18. Sections 6(6)(b), 14(2)(b), 16(1), (2); 17(1), 13, 20 and 33 of the 1999 Constitution

Names of Counsel Prof. Joseph N. Mbadugha (with him, Rita Nwaokenye, Esq. and C. K. James, Esq.) for the Appellant AND Victor Ogude (with him, Kehinde Wilkey, Esq. and Ezinne Emedom,Esq.) Law Companionfor the Respondent

Amici Curiae: Wole Olanipekun, SAN (with him, Akintola Makinde, Kolawole Aro and Bertilla Aro) Chief Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN (with him, Akinyosoye Arosanyin, Ifeoma Ndukwe and Fumbi Akinmusuti) A.B. Mahmoud, SAN, O.E.B. Offiong, SAN (with them, Boma Alabi, Barakah Ali and Anulika Osuigwe) Lucius C. Nwosu SAN, R.A. Lawal-Rabana, SAN, K.C. Njemanze, SAN, Ade Okeaya- Inneh, Jnr, SAN (with them, Z.A. Nwosu) Dayo Apata, Solicitor-General (Federation) (with him, M.L. Shiru, Acting Director Civil Litigation (Federation), T.A. Gazali, Chief State Counsel (Federal Ministry of

Justice), Oyin Koleosho, Senior State Counsel (Federal Ministry of Justice), Ibukun Okoosi, State Counsel and Okoronkwo, State Counsel (Federal Ministry of Justice)

LEAD JUDGMENT As Delivered By CHIMA CENTUS NWEZE, J.S.C At the Federal High Court, Lagos Judicial Division, (hereinafter, simply, called “the trial court”), the appellant in this appeal, (as plaintiff), in an admiralty in personal action, claimed against the respondent herein, (as defendant), the following reliefs: Reinstatement, restoration and remediation of the impaired and/or contaminated environment in Acha autonomous community of Isukwua to Local Government Area of Abia State of Nigeria particularly the Ineh and Aku Streams which environment was contaminated by the oil spill complainedLaw of; Companion Provisions of portable water supply as a substitute to the soiled and contaminated Ineh/Aku Streams, which are the only and/or major source of water supply to the community; Provision of medical facilities for evaluation and treatment of the victims of the after negative health effect of the spillage and/or the contaminated streams. In the amended statement of claim filed on February 9, 2006, the plaintiff was described as a “Non-Governmental Organization incorporated in accordance with part C of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, 1990…” Paragraphs 2, 3, 9, 11, 12, 13 are germane. They were couched thus: “2. The plaintiff carries on inter alia, the function of ensuring reinstatement, restoration and remediation of environments impaired by oil spillage/pollution particularly the un-owned environment or the environment that belongs to no one in particular, and this includes but